"Are you prejudiced?" asks StapMyVitals. Have you been a victim of prejudice? Are you a columnist for a popular daily newspaper? Don't bang on about how you never judge people on first impressions - no-one will believe you.

The whole B3ta "Daily Mail" thing
OK - apologies for lack of humour (this has to be one of the least funny QOTWs ever) - but I feel the need to write about this.

Before I start, let me establish some facts:

1) I am not in any way racist (meaning, I do not give a damn about the colour of someone's skin, or their ethnic origin)2) I do not consider myself a Daily Mail reader - although I will happily read it if it's lying around and I have nothing else to do

I am a born and bred British citizen. I happen to be white - but I consider that totally irrelevant: there are many non-white British citizens who agree with what I am about to say.

In the United Kingdom we have a massive immigration problem. That's a fact: it's not just some "Daily Fail" (oh har har, that's so funny) hate-mongering. Now I'm not talking about all immigrants - no way. I'm talking about the vast numbers of people who come to this country with the intention to take, and not to contribute. The Somali families with ten children, who come here in order to be given free housing and benefits - at the expense of you and me. The so-called "students" from Bangladesh who are supposedly enrolled on an engineering degree, but who can't speak a word of English - and who will be found working cash-in-hand in a restaurant kitchen. The pregnant women from Nigeria, who come to the UK in order to have their babies delivered for free on the National Health Service. The Algerian men who entered the country in the back of a lorry, lived here for several years working illegally, got into fights in nightclubs causing GBH - leading them to be picked up by the police and marked for deportation - but then who magically conjure up a French bride, so that as a family member of a European national, we have to allow them to stay.

It's not exaggerated: it's all true. I myself used to be on a housing waiting list, but I was told that as a single, childless male, I was "lowest priority" because all the asylum seekers came before me. Fact.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who live here, but who do not care one bit for British society. Their purpose is to take as much as they possibly can from the taxpayers' pockets, while taking advantage of our lax laws.

And I - as a British citizen, who has a sizable chunk of his salary taken every month in order to help fund these people - am sick of it. The problem is, however, people in my position feel a great deal of prejudice from the so-called liberal left in this country. And I see quite a bit of evidence of that right here on B3ta. People who do not understand what a big immigration problem this country has, and who think that if anyone speaks out against it, they must be a Daily Heil-reading, BNP nazi.

In fact I have never voted for the BNP, and I do not support them. The reason I do not support them is because their membership is largely made up of racists - and I despise racism. It's a shame that this is the case, however, because they are one of the few parties whose policies actually put British citizens first.

Let me make something else quite clear. I have no problem whatsoever with people who immigrate to this country, and work hard; pay their taxes; contribute to British society; and obey our laws. And to anyone who may have been reading this, and thinking about those lazy and feckless British people who see benefit scrounging as a way of life: yes, I am not saying that all our problems are caused by immigration. I freely admit that there are many immigrants here who do indeed contribute a lot more to society than those British people who scrounge. However, while we may be stuck with the British scroungers - we should not have to be stuck with the non-British scroungers.

So please, people - can we have some common sense here, when writing about Daily Mail readers. It's perfectly possible for someone to be genuinely concerned about the state of our country, but NOT be a racist.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 14:30,
closed)

Asylum Seeker &#8801;! Immigrant
"Asylum Seeker ≡! Immigrant"An asylum seeker is someone who is at very real risk; yes there are illegal immigrants, yes there are those that sponge, etc., yes there are those that take the piss and I do know all the tricks how people manage to stay in the country "but I lost my passport, it was stolen!" is one (meaning they can't send them back to their home country as it can't be definitely identified), but asylum seekers are a real problem, not to us, but for us all - I say give them help, give them a country and social security and somewhere safely to bring up their children.

I come from a family that immigrated to the UK before the concept of 'asylum seeker' or refugee was in law, and now we're a nice, good, contributing family.

Also, what part of you really thinks that none of the parties work in British interest? Do you think all these politicians, especially the tories, and all the civil servants are tripping over themselves to sell us out to the forrins? Sometimes what's best for others may also be best for us, don't confuse spiting foreigners with furthering ourselves and vice versa. As far as I'm aware, in terms of international politics, Britain is considered incredibly stubborn in pursuits of her own interests - far more so than many other nations.
(Frozen_BananaShaved against the grain; thoroughly unrewarding., Mon 5 Apr 2010, 14:45,
closed)

Asylum seeker =/= genuine asylum seeker
I am extremely familiar with the situation regarding asylum seekers. And if you re-read my post, it was not specifically directed at them - more in general towards people who just come here to take. But I shall respond to you.

It is a very common misconception that all asylum seekers have problems in their own countries. Well I can tell you for a fact that the majority of them are merely economic migrants.

In 1951, the UK signed up to the United Nations Convention pertaining to the status of refugees. This convention states that if someone claims asylum in a signatory country, that country is legally obliged to process their claim. In 1951, after the second world war there were a lot of displaced people who had genuine problems: for example, Jews whose homes had been destroyed, and were not safe in society in central Europe.

However, over 50 years on, the word "asylum" is abused by people who are basically economic migrants. People who would not normally be granted a visa, who abuse the 1951 convention to take advantage of the fact that we MUST accept them to process their claim - even if the claim is obviously bogus.

And because they destroy their passports (which means, by the way, that their FIRST act on British soil is a criminal act) - and it is often very difficult to obtain new passports for them, it means that even if it's obvious that their asylum claim is bogus, by the time is is decided they have simply melted away into society, and we can't physically find them in order to send them home.

Also consider that someone who is genuinely fleeing for their lives is supposed to claim asylum in the first "safe" country they reach. They're not supposed to travel thousands of miles, halfway round the world, in order to target the United Kingdom.

Ask yourself: why is it that there are so many people in North France, trying to slip into a lorry bound for Dover? France is a safe country. But no - they don't want to stay in France: they want to come to the UK, where the benefits are more generous!

I come from a family that immigrated to the UK before the concept of 'asylum seeker' or refugee was in law, and now we're a nice, good, contributing family.

Well that's great: good for you. That's entirely what I said in my original post - no problem with genuine immigrants who contribute.

By the way, regarding politics: I do not particularly consider myself right-wing. I am not a Tory. I do not belong to any party. I support the provision of health and social care, and affordable housing to the least well-off. But I do not support providing those things FOR FREE to non-British people people whose primary purpose in coming here is to claim them!
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 15:53,
closed)

"Well I can tell you for a fact that the majority of them are merely economic migrants."
If it's a fact, I'm sure you can back it up. How big a majority? How many people are we talking about in total? What proportion is that of the total workforce, the total unemployment figures? Are immigrants relatively a net drain or a net profit for the UK? How many of those asylum seekers aren't *allowed* to work?
(FlapjackI spay a little mare for you, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 10:28,
closed)

In my line of work
I have first-hand experience of asylum seekers. I know how many are genuinely suffering persecution in their own countries, and how many are merely making excuses to come here and claim money from the British taxpayer.

You can't rely on statistics, by the way - they're all massaged.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 10:40,
closed)

That is a lie
You have not met "millions of asylum seekers". There are not one million asylum seekers in this country.

On the other hand, I am telling the truth when I say I have met thousands of them.

If you disagree with me then please come up with a reasoned argument, and I will respect you. If, however, you just argue for the sake of being a knob, then I will not.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 19:17,
closed)

And if you want to present "facts" to justify your position,
please come up with facts rather than handwavy anecdotes that Must Be True Because A Bloke Off The Internet Said So. While dismissing actual facts as "massaged".

For the record, I don't think you're a racist. But all the signs seem to indicate you're a nationalist bigot, and I'm not sure that that's much better.

The BNP are not "one of the few parties whose policies actually put British citizens first". Their policies put whites of British descent first, and I doubt you need the difference spelling out. But regarding my point above, as long as you see people as a nationality first and a human being second, as far as I'm concerned you'll remain firmly in the "unpleasant" category in any case.
(FlapjackI spay a little mare for you, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 19:55,
closed)

You do realise...
...that 'asylum seeker' is a legal title as handed out by the British government, thus all asylum seekers are genuine.

There is no such thing as a 'bogus' asylum seeker. If you worked with them, you'd know.
(TheSnarkoh, c'mon, like you didn't see me coming, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 10:44,
closed)

Also.
Immigrants have no recourse to public funds, thus it is fairly difficult to sponge off the ether. What exactly are they sponging off of?

Also, to say that Britain has 'too many' refugees is arse. Europe houses 25% of the world's refugees, of which 3% reside in the UK.

As for working, asylum seekers are not allowed under law to work for (at least) the first year. If they don't manage to jump the hurdle of prejudice, the maximum income support they can receive is 70% of a British citizens.

Here are some more 'massaged' figures for those capable of absorbing facts:

Err
"In fact I have never voted for the BNP, and I do not support them. The reason I do not support them is because their membership is largely made up of racists - and I despise racism. It's a shame that this is the case, however, because they are one of the few parties whose policies actually put British citizens first."

Can't you see what's wrong with that statement? It's inherently racist.

Look at Britain's history. We're nation of immigrants who've had wave after wave after wave of "durty forriners" coming over here, stealing our jobs and shagging our women. In my lifetime we've had:

The Afro-Caribbean immigration of the 50's and 60's leading to Enoch Powell's infamous "Rivers Of Blood" speech. We're still here.

Then there was the Ugandan Asians who arrived here in their hundreds of thousands during the 70's when Idi Amin kicked them out. That led to the rise of the National Front screaming "they're over here stealing our jobs" We're still here.

Then comes the EEC and the right of other EEC citizens to come here (obviously, to steal our jobs ) but we're still here, still British.

After that came the expansion of the EEC to include Eastern Europe which led to the racists claiming we'd be flooded with Poles and Slavs who would come over here to steal our jobs, sponge off our tax system and shag our women. We're still here, still British.

When I was last in London I was friendly with a few Poles. They were over here to work for a few years, save up as much cash as they could, then go back to Poland to buy an enormous turnip in the country. They liked the money they could make here (stealing out jobs) but would much rather make a pile (in their terms) then bugger off back to their homeland. Nice bunch - I liked them.

I don't know.
I stopped feeling British a long time ago. I stopped feeling English when I had to go to court to enforce my son's right to have a father.

I feel loyalty only to friends and family and would nowadays tell anyone appealling to my patriotism to get stuffed.

As for calling people `racists' - reminds me of the quote about it being a handy catch all title to describe anyone with who you disagree from paid up members of the BNP to the milkman's bill you're querying.

^^ This
My former boss was Polish and made no secret of the fact that she was saving up to buy a house in Poland and set up home there. Not that it would have been a problem if she'd wanted to stay, of course: she was a regular taxpayer and contributed to the economy to exactly the same degree as a gainfully and legitimately employed British citizen would have.

She didn't even 'steal' any 'British jobs' - she set up her own company and ran everything pretty much herself.
(Ghetto Yetiparsley, sage, rosemary and Special Brew, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 15:13,
closed)

Seems like you missed the point. Did you not actually read my post?Can't you see what's wrong with that statement? It's inherently racist.

You appear to be confusing "racism" with the simple premise that a country's government's first responsibility should be towards its own citizens. Racism is when someone is discriminated against because of their race or ethnic background. I'm talking about citizenship here, which has nothing to do with race. The British government should favour a black British citizen over a white Russian citizen.

Look at Britain's history. We're nation of immigrants who've had wave after wave after wave of "durty forriners" coming over here

*sigh*Yet another person who is unable to grasp the significance of what's been happening to this country over the past decade or so. Please get this: yes, we're a "nation of immigrants". However, this has been a gradual process over the course of millennia. People have immigrated into this country, and been assimilated into society. What's we're facing now is VERY different: huge numbers arriving en-mass, bringing with them vastly different values and ethics, and creating "us and them" divisions within our nation. The fact all of our ancestors probably came from all corners of the globe, hundreds or thousands of years ago, bears no relation whatsoever to the current immigration problem.

The Afro-Caribbean immigration of the 50's and 60's

What relevance does this have to my post? I already said that I have no problem with those people who immigrated here and worked hard and created lives for themselves. The people who came here 50 years ago did not do so because they wanted to claim benefits.

"they're over here stealing our jobs"

I said nothing about stealing jobs - so what relevance does this have?

Then comes the EEC and the right of other EEC citizens to come here (obviously, to steal our jobs )

Yet again, you appear to have missed the point of my post. Yet again, I will repeat that I have no problem with someone who comes here legally to work, and not to scrounge.

When I was last in London I was friendly with a few Poles. They were over here to work for a few years, save up as much cash as they could, then go back to Poland to buy an enormous turnip in the country.

And good luck to them - I totally agree. If there's a job vacancy that a lazy British person refuses to take, then I say jolly good luck to the Polish guy who takes it. I hope he earns a packet.

Yet again - it's not about "taking our jobs" (did you see that South Park episode? hehe). It's about people who come here to take, and not to give.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 15:39,
closed)

But..Yet again - it's not about "taking our jobs" (did you see that South Park episode? hehe). It's about people who come here to take, and not to give.

This is one of the great myths. The proportion of immigrants who come over to Britain simply to sponge off the welfare state is so small as to be statistically insignificant. But the FEAR of people who come over here simply to sponge off the welfare state is MASSIVE.

Think about it. The people who have the get-up-and-go to leave where they were born and travel thousands of miles to settle in a place where they don't know the language or customs aren't the type to simply sit back and rub their hands and say "Great lads. We're in the Land Of Milk And Honey and all we have to do is sit back and let the silly British folk look after us."

No. They're, mostly, the type of people who, on arriving in Britain think "How can I get money to make my life better. How can I find a wife, have kids and make sure that they're educated so they have a better life than I did". So they'll take every job they can - mostly low paid and menial - to make their life better than mere subsistence. Yes, a hefty proportion of them will claim benefits and work "on the black" but, over time, most of them end up working legally. Still in a shit job but they'll do everything in their power to educate their kids and give them a chance at the good life.

Immigration isn't a thing to be feared. Most of them integrate so successfully into society that by the third generation they're buying the Daily Mail and wailing about damn immigrants, coming over here, taking, not giving and so the cycle goes on.

Here's something to ponder. Name me ONE society where peaceful immigration has caused it to crash and burn.

I think perhaps people
are ignoring the actual biggest fear here. Forget about the indigenous population being angry about welfare sponges (there are enough of those around in Britain around at the moment.) What people are scared of is *culture* change. There is far more froth-flecked ranting about conspiracy theories with the Jews and the Muslims etc taking over, or the racial purity being compromised, than there is genuine economic worry (which sadly serves as a cover for such bigotry.)
(Amberlwas stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:14,
closed)

Dear God..

Racial purity.

I smoke too much, drink too much and don't exercise enough and I still rarely get sick. I put it down to "hybrid vigour".

I love being a mongrel.

And I agree with most of what you said. But cultural change is always going on. Anyone time-warped from the 40's or 50's into today's society would probably drop dead of culture shock.

Yeah
cultural change is needed. I'm just pointing out that a lot of the ranting about 'taking our jobs' is a cover up for even less socially acceptable views
(Amberlwas stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:37,
closed)

"What's we're facing now is VERY different: huge numbers arriving en-mass, bringing with them vastly different values and ethics, and creating "us and them" divisions within our nation."
Pfft, those nasty insular bigots, creating an "us and them" division that you are quite powerless to oppose. Eye, mote, etc.
(FlapjackI spay a little mare for you, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 10:19,
closed)

The general perception of West Indian immigrants in the 1950s was that they were lazy and contributed nothing to the economy.
Not at all accurate in any way, but tits like you believed it.
(Wicca'd Witchneeds ideas for a new sig on..., Tue 6 Apr 2010, 18:21,
closed)

And here the personal abuse starts
Sad. Up until now we have had reasonable arguments. Now you call me a "tit".

Your assessment of me is made through ignorance. You think that I am prejudiced, and that I don't know what I am talking about.

The truth is that I do know what I am talking about, because I have first-hand experience of all of this. And the fact that you presume such things about me makes you the prejudiced tit.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 19:19,
closed)

Do you. Do you REALLY.
Name your sources, so to speak. What job is it that you do/did?
(Wicca'd Witchneeds ideas for a new sig on..., Tue 6 Apr 2010, 20:37,
closed)

Also, this is b3ta. You come out with bollocks like this here
and you'll get called a tit (or worse). I've not got the patience to mollycoddle you.
(Wicca'd Witchneeds ideas for a new sig on..., Tue 6 Apr 2010, 20:57,
closed)

Don't forget the Angles, the Saxons, the Picts, the Celts, the Brettons, the Romans, the Vikings and the Normans

They didn't sponge... they just took.If you're advocating immigrants sacking and pillaging local religious institutions so that they don't have to rely on the Welfare state then that's a bit odd to say the least. I'm sure Bede would have something to say about that.
(TFDis sporting this season's finest necropants, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 14:22,
closed)

Taken from www.annaraccoon.com
The inimitable Anna puts my point of view far more coherently that I ever could...

"Walk the daytime streets of any big city in the UK, and you will find yourself amongst the throng of economically inactive multi-culturalism.

They don’t look like European migrants to me, they speak in many tongues, they certainly don’t appear to be at work ‘contributing to our economy’, they lean against shop fronts on street corners, and their wives fill the market places like a cloud of bluebottles.

Who are they Mr Brown? They are not your ‘net migrants’ hard at work packing carrots in deepest Norfolk. They are not caring for our elderly in their homes. They are just ‘there’, supported by someone, housed by someone, fed by someone, clothed by someone.

I am prepared to accept that some of them, a few hundred maybe, have faced unimaginable troubles in deepest Rwanda, they have my sympathy; I understand that some of them were born in Britain and it is not their fault that they cannot find a job;, but not thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions even, of economically inactive faces who stare impassively into the middle distance, quite content that they have become our responsibility.

They are the people we need to talk about Mr Brown, so would you mind not fudging the issue with your talk of net migration, and how highly skilled migrants contribute to our economy. We know that. We weren’t complaining about them.

Could you get back on track and talk about the millions, black, white, and rarely Chinese, who manage to shop, stay dry, warm, entertained, mobile and in communication with their friends and relatives without any sign of contributing to our economy?

They don’t appear to be taking ‘British jobs from British workers’ as you said. Why would they? They seem to be managing just fine as it is."
(Billy The Fishwants to gargle with Lucy Pinder's bath water, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 15:08,
closed)

UhhThey don’t appear to be taking ‘British jobs from British workers’ as you said

No, I did not say that. Read my post again please. There is nothing in it which complains about "taking our jobs". That is totally not the point of what I am saying. Please stop trying to misquote me.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 10:43,
closed)

Firstly, Boaz released statistics stating that of the 47 million people in the third world displaced by war, famine etc only 0.7% of them made it in to Europe and 0.075% in to Britain suggesting that refugess are more of a problem for nieghbouring third world countries then for us.

Seondly, if billy and his blogger don't know why so many immigrants appear to be doing nothing during the day then they've obviously never worked a night shift in a factory, warehouse or similair.
(Abercadabralooks more like Gerry Adams every day, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 15:21,
closed)

It's a highly highly emotive issue
and although I think there is a problem with immigration, I think the basic problem is with the welfare system not the immigrants.

We have to be aware of human rights. It really is as simple as that sometimes. Asylum-seekers sometimes have faced horrors back in their home-countries. Yes there are the liars and the spongers, but I rather feel that the old maxim of 'I'd rather let one hundred guilty men go free, than put to death one innocent' applies in this case. We can't turn away all and sundry just because we suspect some of them might not be what they seem. Yes that may make me seem like a 'liberal' (though I take that more as a badge of honour than an insult) but I think we have to be aware that xenophobia is not a good emotion to have.

Perhaps what we need to do is severely cut back on the welfare system or restrict it only to people born here, while at the same time relaxing working laws for non-citizens, and promoting integration.
(Amberlwas stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 15:30,
closed)

Racists!
What worries me more than anything is that the point of view in the initial post is an increasingly common one - held by people that most others would consider otherwise entirely unremarkable.

In my opinion this view definitely ain't racism, but for f**kwits it's a short hop, skip and jump there.

What doesn't help is the automatic hue and cry of shouting `Racist!' at anyone who expresses a view on immigration and the whole thing. Do that and those people will dismiss you as a liberal facist (and in my opinion sometimes quite rightly) who preaches tolerance for everyone and their views...except if you believe that or even that.

To quote George Orwell "At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to state this or that or the other, but it is “not done”… Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals."

Personally, I would allow the BNP party political broadcasts. I've give Nick Griffin a chance to appear on Question Time without bothering to make it a big deal. And when he and them slips up, treat them in the same way you treat any other twunts who spout bollocks in the media.

Shouting louder than someone else - or screaming `Racist!' at them does NOT win the argument. Showing their arguments to be flawed does.
(Audax Victor, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 15:48,
closed)

Which is what I hope came across in my post
that I'm not racist (I despise racists) but that I think there needs to be an open and genuine debate on the welfare system rather than necessarily immigration
(Amberlwas stripey and dominated Europe, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:07,
closed)

i have always thought
it is not immigration that is the problem, but rather it's the free handouts. i don't care if you have just arrived from any country in the world or if your ancestors have lived here since pre-1066, if you are healthy and under 60, get a fucking job and contribute something!

if we didn't give everything away for free, we wouldn't be so attractive to the dregs that do wash up here from every other country in the world, whilst those who are hard working and looking for a different or better life would still come and contribute. meanwhile the little shites who run around in gangs knifing each other for straying onto their turf - hello, your turf? you own NOTHING because you don't earn anything, therefore you can't buy anything, never mind real estate -and holding their hands out to the government once a week for free cash would actually have to do something for it.

my friend was made redundant recently and was advised to sign on to keep up her NI contributions. she said it was crammed with people demanding "their" money. ffs. some of us get up at 6am every day and work 6, sometimes 7, days a week, from about 8am to 8pm at the earliest, and often well beyond midnight. and we pay about 3k a month in tax. why on earth should we do this just so that other people can scrounge free housing and free pocket money? argh!!! it's not "your" money, you are not entitled to free money, so why do we have a system that propagates this? if we all took that attitude, who would pay for it??

that being said, there are too many people in the country, it's a simple matter of mathematics not racism - it's a tiny island. you can't get a train or on a motorway or your child into school or into hospital or have a hosepipe in the summer or preserve greenbelt without it having hundreds of cheap new houses built on it because we are full. we should have a "one in, one out" policy for every country, just like nightclubs!
(rachelswipe/still got all my hair and a 28" waist, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 15:44,
closed)

You're correct, Miss Swipe.
That, of course, is the other issue. The fact that we're a small island with a dense population, and we do not have unlimited capacity.

Our roads are congested.Our hospitals are full.Our schools are full.

I remember when I was a child in the 1980s, I was in a primary school class of 25. That was considered the maximum at the time. 25 was a large class. Now these days I hear it's not uncommon for children to be in classes of 35 or more.

20 years ago, when you had a baby on the NHS they would keep you in hospital for a whole week taking care of you. Now, as I understand it, for your first child you'll be lucky if they keep you in for 2 nights - and any subsequent children you stay only one night.

I'm sure everyone has heard the tale about putting a frog in a pan of boiling water: it jumps out. But if you put it in cold water and heat it up slowly then it doesn't notice, and gets cooked where it sits. Actually I read this was not true - but it still serves to make a good point. This country is gradually being eroded away. There are fewer and fewer tax-paying contributors, proportionally - and more and more people who take and take. The change is gradual, but it is there.

Even for the "good" immigrants who come here to work, you need to understand that they're still allowed free healthcare and education for their children. It's not uncommon for a family with several children to come here - where one person is working and the rest are his/her dependants. They're perfectly legal, sure. And they're not bad people.. no way siree. I have nothing against these people as individuals. But if you account for the cost of healthcare and schooling, it is very common for this hypothetical family to actually be taking MORE from the public purse than the main wage earner pays in income tax. The result is a NET LOSS to the United Kingdom.

And none of the mainstream parties care about this - because of their "I'm alright Jack" attitude. The politicians live in their ivory towers with their duckhouses and moats, and because they can afford BUPA and private education, they don't give a crap on a personal level.

Young people today are faced with the highest house-price-to-earning ratio in history. It's impossible for a single person to get on the property ladder, if they're only earning an average wage. This is because of the simple laws of supply and demand: there are simply too many people in this country, and not enough housing. So what should we do? Concrete over all the green space in the UK to build housing? Some of the lefty brigade seem to think that we should, because they are under the illusion that we have unlimited space!
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 1:09,
closed)

To correct you on just one of those points.
The NHS now doesn't encourage unecessary hospital stays. If you can go home you're sent home, it's for clinical reasons, you generally recover quicker at home than in a hospital it's got nothing to do with money/capacity.
(PsychoChomp, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 11:24,
closed)

re: your friend
If she - and any of the other people she mixed with when she went to sign on - was made redundant from a job paying UK tax and NI, then the handouts she (and they) got in return for signing on *IS* "their money". That's one of the reasons "NI" is called National Insurance, ffs. Why should you pay £3k a month in tax? Because tomorrow, or next month, or next year, you might be unemployed, sick, disabled, etc. and you might not be able to afford to eat unless someone else pays for your food, out of their taxes. I've never understood the pride some people take in never having claimed any kind of benefits - it's like being proud because you've never been ill. Lucky you. And we are not "full". While England is one of the most densely-populated countries in Europe, it is also one with the most thinly-populated areas (e.g. Devon and Cornwall, Herefordshire, Norfolk, Cumbria are all comparatively empty, and that's to say nothing about the huge empty spaces in Wales and Scotland). As a proportion of our total land area, Great Britain has one of the LOWEST percentages of built land in the EU. Mostly because of sentimentalisation of the countryside as some kind of rural theme park rather than a working environment that ONLY looks the way it does because of farming and hunting. For example, the upland moors and mountainsides only have heather on them because the people that lived and worked there were booted off by landlords 100s of years ago to make room for grouse to be shot by them and their mates. Grouse eat heather shoots, so they planted heather there. Similarly, wool and meat form sheep made landowners more money than rent from smallholders (crofters), so they booted them off the land to make room for sheep. There is no sensible reason why we still have this allergy to building on "greenfield land" other than that big landowners don't want to and sentimentalists don't like the idea of urban sprawl. And if we had some sensible planning laws that stopped pretending that the only way to develop is to continue to act as if only London and the South East can be built on, and spread it out over the whole country, there's more than enough room for 80 or even 100 million people to live in the UK.If that's what we need; and I'm not saying it is - all I am saying is that "we're full" is a bulshit reason to oppose immigration. Competition for council housing (asylum seekers jumping queues, etc.) is caused by there not being enough council housing, not by there being too many immigrants. We've built next to bugger all new public housing since the early 1980s, but right-to-buy means the available stock has inexorably drifted down in quantity and quality. Forcing everyone into the private rented sector, or (more likely) driving up prices for house purchases. And the "need" for immigration is caused as much by our "need" to keep large numbers of working people in their 20s, 30s and 40s so people can continue to retire in their early to mid 60s - their pensions are paid for by current workers, and will continue to be so in the light of the collapse of final salary pensions, underperformance of stock-linked pensions etc. If we just bit the bullet and admitted that the retirement age needs to go up to (at least) 70 (more like 75), we'd be doing more to fix the country's problems than by closing the doors to new immigration. When old age pensions were first introduced, the pensionable age was slightly higher than life expectancies were i.e. you'd be lucky if you lived long enough to claim it - ensuring that there were far more people working to pay for them out of taxation/NI than would ever claim them. But for nearly 50 years, the retirement ages didn't change at all while life expectancies shot up (to over 80 for women and late 70s for men, and those are life expectancies at birth, not for people already in work, which are always rather higher - infant mortality rates, and all that). So now we have more pensioners than we do under 16s. Not because of any weird demographics, just because we didn't demand that retirement ages kept pace with life expectancy. In this regard, our expectations of wanting to retire while we're still active (it's legally possible to retire at 50, FFS) mean we are all aiming to be scroungers. Even if we have private pensions, the stock market (or other investment) growth we rely on to be able to retire in comfort depends on the work of other people, not just ourselves, so it's a kind of scrounging in a way. So don't let's all pretend that scrounging is something we don't all intend to do, that the country is "full" for any reason other than the way we want it to look, or that benefits are only claimed by people who haven't earned them just because it absolves us of responsibility for the relative mess our country is in (and it isn't fucking "broken", just a bit bent out of shape, mostly through the unintended consequences of things we told successive governments that we wanted).
(shinyshinyscalpless a man, more a way of life, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:01,
closed)

I disagree with you
But I thank you for making some intelligent and reasonable points.

In stark contrast to a couple of morons within this thread...
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 19:24,
closed)

Oh, 'Swipe...
... this post is so nose-deep in crap, it's difficult to know where to start. I'll try to keep it short.

1. It's not possible just to get a job from out of nowhere.2. The idea that we give free stuff to the "dregs" of the world is false. Most immigrants get just about nothing by way of benefits. There was a survey recently of recently arrived illegals. Most had no idea that they were coming to Britain, and most of those who did know that they were coming to Britain had no idea that there would be any state benefits.

You call them immigrants; I call them entrepreneurs.

3. You pay tax and NI as a contribution partly to pay for the good things that living here provides, and partly out of minimal decency. Face it, if you're paying £3k a month in tax, you aren't exactly hard done by. Grow up.

4. By what standard are there too many? Only about 10% of the UK is built on, and even that land is ineffiently used. Moreover, the "too many" of whom you speak probably refers to the elderly and those who simply haven't died yet. The economy needs young immigrants to pay for them, given that the reproduction rate in the UK is currently about 1.6 children per family. (Replacement rate is 2.1.)

On the topic of overcrowding, though: presumably, if you're anti-immigtation, you're also pro-cancer, since cancer kills more people than migrate here. So to cure cancer would push up the population further. I take it you're pro-cancer, then?

I'm actually genuinely surprised and slightly depressed that the very original poster has got some agreement and support here. I really, genuinely thought this place was better than that. Oh well. Perhaps society really is fucked into a cocked hat, then. Let's burn this fucking world.
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 17:20,
closed)

hmmm
1 yes it is. you can clean graffiti off trains and walls, you can visit lonely old people in homes or hospitals or shop/cook/clean for them, you can empty bins in the park, you can clean the leaves off the train lines, you can recycle, you can do something. then you have earned your money, the environment is a nicer place, and everyone wins!

2 with respect, i think it is a bit naive to say that most people who have just arrived illegally in britain had no idea this was where they were coming and it was just pure good luck that they didn't end up somewhere less hospitable. for example, look at the people in calais who risk their lives to cling under trains etc to get here. and every single one of them says "britain is where i am going". that being said, so what, i couldn't care less where someone comes from so long as they want to work when they get here!

3 well, i quite literally work my arse off for it. and i don't resent paying the tax; i am left with an extremely comfortable amount that no-one could complain about (although i will NOT be telling my boss that on pay review!!). but it does anger me that i feel it gets pissed away. i have always thought you should be able to nominate where your taxes go. in which case, my tax contributions would go on the NHS, education and transport in that order, before anywhere else. as it is, NHS staff who do an amazing job often get paid a pittance compared to the job that they do, ditto teachers... i am not saying i shouldn't have to pay that much in tax, i am saying i would like it to be used in paying higher wages to nurses, teachers etc, not be given to some little scrote to spend on beer and fags (or some braindead out of touch MP to feed his ducks, come to that!).

4 there are too many people when the services can't cope with them. schools, hospitals, roads, trains - all full. i like the fact that so much of this country is pretty and green. i don't want to see it carpeted with identikit housing estates. maybe the better answer is to spend the money on regenerating dying towns, but who is realistically going to want to move there until there is a reason to do so? my family are all from various parts of yorkshire where the town centres are dying off because the industry has gone. not one of their youngsters wants to stay, they all have their eyes on manchester or london or birmingham.

cancer? come on, you can do better than this hyperbolic argument!
(rachelswipe/still got all my hair and a 28" waist, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 9:57,
closed)

Your fourth point is a bit scary
Other people should tolerate shit lives and conditions so you can see fields and squirrels? Careful there.

What if you have kids? Why do they have more right to take a little bit of that green field than someone who emigrates here? Or if the country is "full" by your reasoning, should they have to fuck off somewhere else the minute they turn 18?
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 10:33,
closed)

don't worry, i will never be inflicting my genes
on society!

i just meant that it seems pointless to build new things when there is so much that is already built that could be regenerated.
(rachelswipe/still got all my hair and a 28" waist, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 10:52,
closed)

that I wholeheartedly agree with.
But it's not really an immigration issue. IMO.
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 10:57,
closed)

Question
In a previous life before i learned a trade, I worked with a great many polish,Indians and people of questionable descent and or immigration status. For the most part,they worked hard,kept their heads down,lived ten to a house for shit wages and had at least two jobs.yet for all their effort, many struggled to find permanent,meaningful employment.You wonder why they are on benefits?Ask yourself this, who would you rather employ,a Brit or an Albanian? And there's your answer. I personally would employ an immigrant every time,they wor5 harder than any of us. Sorry about poor English, typing this from phone. Let the flaming commence.
(hangableautobulbis an anagram of the best album ever, on, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 15:48,
closed)

Who would I rather employ?
I would employ the person who worked the hardest, as long as they were legally entitled to take employment in this country.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:43,
closed)

I can see where you're coming from.
Although perhaps the phrasing may annoy a few. For my own 2p, I think people are welcome. Come one, come all. As long as you contribute to society, that's fine. The thing is, many are prevented from contributing- all many refugees want to do is to get a job and get on with life, but are prevented from doing so by the ridiculous system that we have, keeping them on food stamps, paid for by the public purse, which is my mind is a massive waste of money.

Far better to speed up the system, get those who want to work jobs, and force the spongers to get jobs that are the lowest of the low. If people want to stay here, they should work. Cleaning the streets, picking up rubbish, filling in potholes. That kind of thing.
(jim_bobcan herd cats., Mon 5 Apr 2010, 15:58,
closed)

yes, but no
"There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who live here, but who do not care one bit for British society. Their purpose is to take as much as they possibly can from the taxpayers' pockets, while taking advantage of our lax laws."

I absolutely agree with this.I just don't see why you suffer from the delusion that this is in any way exclusive to immigrants.This paragraph would equally apply to some immigrants, some people on council estates, some politicians and so on.

"However, while we may be stuck with the British scroungers - we should not have to be stuck with the non-British scroungers."

So it's OK to be a scrounger as long as you're a traditional British scrounger, and not one of them there foreign scroungers?

Look, do you have an issue with scroungers, or do you have a problem with immigrants?There are non-immigrant scroungers and non-scrounging immigrants.If the problem is with the "scrounging" aspect, and not the "immigrant" part then why focus on the fact people are non-British?
(phyphor, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:03,
closed)

Serious question
How would you deal with British scroungers? Not making a point here.

Say `We shouldn't support scoungers' and you may as well start bandying phrases such as `Back to Basics', `Means testing' and `Get on Your Bike'.

For the record I think there are too many scroungers in this country. No matter where they come from.
(Audax Victor, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:16,
closed)

response
"How would you deal with British scroungers?"

That's a very difficult question. It's not for me to decide what to do as the what to do depends on what the desired outcome is.

There are a near infinite number of possibilities from "give nobody anything" to "give everybody everything", each with economic and social costs.

But just because "working out how to deal with scroungers" is hard doesn't mean we should ignore it and go for "send immigrants home" because it's an easier option.
(phyphor, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:38,
closed)

Not disagreeing with you
The `too many immigrants' thing is a seperate issue to that of `scroungers'.

Saying that, the `We've got enough scroungers of our own' thing is conflated by some to justify open borders...and of course you're never going to stop good old-fashioned work dodgers are you?

Not without going further right than man has ever gone before...and I'm guessing that most of the people who use this argument wouldn't say `fair enough' if a country with no `native scroungers' started `sending back' forrin ones too - I'm guessing they'd be described as `racist twunts'.
(Audax Victor, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 18:08,
closed)

If I were Prime Minister...
I would simply make it so that it was ALWAYS more profitable to choose to work and earn money, than it is to claim benefits.

There are several ways of implementing this. But basically, make it so that the safety net is there - so that if you lose your job you will still be able to survive. But it should be impossible to be a lifestyle choice to be on benefits.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:40,
closed)

ClarificationSo it's OK to be a scrounger as long as you're a traditional British scrounger, and not one of them there foreign scroungers?

No. But the difference is that if a scrounger is a British citizen, we're basically stuck with them because there's nothing else to do with them. However, if they're not a British citizen then we DO have a choice to expel them back to their own country.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:19,
closed)

Rebuttal
"No. But the difference is that if a scrounger is a British citizen, we're basically stuck with them because there's nothing else to do with them."

Not at all. We could put them in prison, or labour camps, or simply execute them. Or just let them starve or die of disease. Not very nice suggestions, admittedly, but they exist.

Why don't we do this? Because it's barbaric.

"However, if they're not a British citizen then we DO have a choice to expel them back to their own country."

And if they go back they might face prison, or labour camps, or execution, or starving to death or dying from simple disease.

Not that this is guaranteed, of course, but this is why we have a system for asylum seekers to seek asylum.

Again, if the problem is with the scrounging aspect and not the immigrant aspect then why not focus on how to identify and resolve that?
(phyphor, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:31,
closed)

WrongNot at all. We could put them in prison, or labour camps, or simply execute them. Or just let them starve or die of disease. Not very nice suggestions, admittedly, but they exist.

Why don't we do this? Because it's barbaric.

You answered your own question there. The reason we don't do those things to the British scroungers is because it would be inhumane.

But sending a person back to their HOME COUNTRY is not inhumane.By the way - this thread was not specifically about asylum seekers - we're talking about economic migrants, who will NOT be tortured/killed back in their own country. The "asylum seeker" thread is another topic.

Again, if the problem is with the scrounging aspect and not the immigrant aspect then why not focus on how to identify and resolve that?

Yes, I agree that we should try to solve the scrounging problem. But there is no reason why we should have to play the mug and accept OTHER countries' scroungers, on top of our own! Let these people be a burden on the taxpayers of their HOME countries - and not on the taxpayers on THIS country.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 0:54,
closed)

Another B3ta Shocker

A debate with people who have diametrically opposed views and no-one has called somebody a cunt yet.

Good innit?
I once took part in an online debate about fox hunting that consisted in the extreme of people who were hunt sabs as well as those who went out and hunted them (the foxes...not the sabs)...and NO ONE fell out over it.

Much more interesting when you hear why people believe what they do as opposed to screaming abuse...
(Audax Victor, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:18,
closed)

Hell, I like you
If I had a sister you could come come round my house, etc.
(Audax Victor, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 18:09,
closed)

Hehe, yes
I don't mind people disagreeing with me...

As long as we can have an intelligent and reasonable debate, which does not degenerate into personal attacks. Very healthy.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 16:37,
closed)

More a case of...
I could not think of anything else vaguely amusing for my sig, and I just wanted to put something in there :)
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 10:46,
closed)

You know what TFD?
I think it just might be. Some of his best blacks are friends.
(Blue Starwill blow you a kiss, it should reach you tomorrow, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 16:52,
closed)

To be fair to the Daly Fail
They're fairly consistent in their intolerance - it's not just the asylum seeking, immigrating, job stealing darkies and muslims they have a pop at. They're equally at home having a go at the poofs and lezzers, too.

Arse
There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who live here, but who do not care one bit for British society. Their purpose is to take as much as they possibly can from the taxpayers' pockets, while taking advantage of our lax laws.

True, but most of them were born here. Who'd cross the Channel in a speedboat just to claim stingy benefits? Daily Mail readers are narrow minded cunts who extrapolate from the most extreme anecdote printed in their bigoted paper of choice and imagine that's what all blacks, all Muslims, all asylum seekers are doing. There is a housing shortage in the South of England but to blame it on the darkies is naive, mean-spirited, and very very gay.
(bagpuss606, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 17:29,
closed)

When you say they come here and don't contribute
Do you mean that they don't pay VAT or pay duty on their fags, booze and petrol?
(sandettie light vessel automaticNew Twitter - @bollocksreally, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 18:41,
closed)

The one point
that really interests me is that asylum seekers are supposed to stop at the first safe country, as far as Im aware none of the countries bordering us are committing human rights attrocities, so whats wrong with the rest of Europe?
(Obi wanker nobiIts not a bug, its an unexpected feature, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 18:49,
closed)

It's full of frogs
krauts, spaniards etc etc etc...

Good points made above. It's the scroungers who are the problem, of whatever colour. Worked with a black fella end of last year who got very wound up with his neighbours who referred to dole money as "wages". He even mentioned a bloke who, whilst seemingly very polite and intelligent, deliberately tatoo'd his face to make sure he failed every interview. It'd be bloody great if we could swap every long term scrounger for an immigrant who'll work.Still like the point someone made about Griffin being a Norman name-so Nick can fuck off back to France!
(Greenbat, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 19:28,
closed)

That winds me up
You wish to claim asylum?Where did you come here from?France?Fuck off.

No need to have a court case, stick them in the back of the next available outbound lorry.
(stopmeandslapmeCometh the hour, cometh your mum, Mon 5 Apr 2010, 23:06,
closed)

Precisely
If someone is in GENUINE fear of their life, then they will flee to the first safe country they get to.

They won't spend thousands of pounds paying a people-smuggling agent to fly thousands of miles halfway round the planet.

No - they do that because they actively target the United Kingdom. It's NOTHING to do with being a genuine refugee, and EVERYTHING to do with wanting to milk the system.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 0:50,
closed)

Could it be ?
That the problem is the lack of fairness, not the nationality?Anyone who abuses the social safety net pisses us off - irrespective of their origin.Likewise any country who moves asylum seekers (real or not) through their country to dump them in England.

1. My belief is that anyone receiving benefits should contribute in some way.There's no shortage of works needed out there, as the govt is effectively paying a wage, it would seem fair to expect something in return. The 'health tourism' should also be manageablewith some political courage.

2. France is being 'somewhat naughty' - and the UK govt is a disgrace forallowing this to continue.

[sigh]
Eurosong is just yet another racist who cares more about the colour of your skin that anything else. A self styled Daily Fail reader. If a Polish fells comes to England to earn an honest living, why are you so quick to shoot him down?
(nraphael, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 6:00,
closed)

I agree with Eurosong, entirely. It's not a race thing (sorry to wave my pc credentials [as I'm not PC and think the argument stands on it's own merits], but my wife is part-forrin, my best mate [and guy I've lived with for ages] is black caribbean) but an indicator that many Brits (esp young white men that work and pay crippling taxes [my last tax month saw £1920 taken from me, before my road tax, diesel tax, council tax, VAT on purchases etc) are feeling disenfranchised and neglected.

If people need refuge, they are meant to stop in the first country they reach. We're an island for God's sake, so we are never the first country to be reached (unless you're French or Irish!).

I think immigration is to be applauded if the immigrant is not a criminal, works, pays tax and obeys our laws and follows our social mores.

I am from Yorkshire first, England second, Britain third. I obey the laws (mainly), I work, I pay my way, I don't allow my beliefs to affect the majority.

What if you arrive by air? Or by sea?
Do yourself a favour. Do some voluntary work with asylum seekers. Listen to their stories. It'll shut you up a bit.
(Wicca'd Witchneeds ideas for a new sig on..., Tue 6 Apr 2010, 18:25,
closed)

Have you done some work with asylum seekers?
Have YOU listened to their stories?

Yes, you?
Because I'm beginning to think you just made it up to win an argument on the internet.

I DO work with them, and 100% of me thinks you are 100% full of...
(TheSnarkoh, c'mon, like you didn't see me coming, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 10:49,
closed)

Christ.
Some of what you're saying here is of course sense. But you're still in the really scary area. What on earth made you stop thinking of immigrants and asylum seekers as human beings?

Firstly, lets gloss over the "ah, they all ignore other countries and come to britain". That'll be why France and Spain have no immigrant populations then, at all, right? Please, please, for the love of whatever fucking deity you follow, stop believing the shit that is written in the Mail and the Express. They don't "all come here"

Second. Those that do. They are PEOPLE. Not subhuman scum. Maybe they have family here? maybe their second language is English? Maybe the UK is considered to have a fairer system than, say, Italy, which is basically still a wee bit fascist. Who the fuck gave you the right to decide where they can and can't come to? Do you know the details of each and every case? Because I don't, so I wouldn't presume to judge, but I know this. Very few of them are coming here because the UK is viewed as a "free ride". That concept exists only in the minds of a few bigoted journalists wanking themselves into a frenzy every night while listening to "rivers of blood"

I certainly hope you're just trolling
Because if you're serious, it means you can't read. You certainly did not actually read my post.

I never "shot down" any Polish person who comes here to earn an honest living. And if you see several of my replies, you'll see that I have said I have no problem with that and wish them luck.

My problem is with the people who come here to scrounge, and not to contribute. And that has nothing to do with skin colour.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 10:52,
closed)

You do know that most people living outside the UK haven't got the first fucking clue about our benefits system, right?

despite 34 years in this country, give or take, I don't have a clue about our benefits system
because, thank christ, I work hard and I've been very lucky and I've never had to go there. But, obviously, there are night school classes in Somalia on exactly how it works. Obviously. This is exactly the problem.
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 10:37,
closed)

"There are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who live here, but who do not care one bit for British society. Their purpose is to take as much as they possibly can from the taxpayers' pockets, while taking advantage of our lax laws."

We can't do anything about them, they're "us"
it's the "them" that are the problem, with their "us and them" mentality. Apparently.
(FlapjackI spay a little mare for you, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 10:29,
closed)

It does not describe me
Does it describe you?
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 10:55,
closed)

Not relevant.
It describes some people. Explain to me how it matters whether they were born in the UK or came here last week? Do you seriously believe that being born here gives you some innate right "to take as much as you can from the taxpayers pockets while taking advantage of our tax laws?"
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 11:35,
closed)

No, no-one has the "right" to do that
But surely you agree that it is "a bad thing" if people do that... don't you?

Therefore the fewer people who do such a thing, the better.

And if we can eject at least SOME of those people - on the grounds that they are not British - then we should do so.

Or do you disagree with me, and you don't mind that your tax money goes towards funding spongers?
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:35,
closed)

I've no particular opinion either way. I accept it as an unpleasant but natural facet of humanity and human behavior.
I'd love to see your justification for how "where you were born" is an acceptable reason to choose who you persecute for doing and who you don't, though. Do you think that people born in, ooh, Somalia should face a different punishment - let's say the death sentence rather than life in prison - for committing murder in the UK, as well?
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 14:05,
closed)

It's interesting...
...that you make so many of your arguments based on precisely the kinds of preconceptions the right-wing press (e.g. Daily Mail / Express etc) continually perpetrate. Going off on one about "scrounging immigrants" while insisting you're not racist is a transparent position built on arguments which don't stand up to analysis. Anyone can pick out a few examples - a tactic the right wing press uses repeatedly when trying to fan flames against immigration - but the fact is that if you look at the actual statistics then those arguments don't hold water and the examples are simply not reflective of the overall picture.

The immigration regulations cannot sift the deserving cases from the non-deserving ones on every occasion. If we want to have a fair and reasonable system which allows in deserving cases we have to accept that sometimes this is going to be abused.

There are typically three ways to get into the UK: be a citizen of a Commonwealth country, be a citizen of an EU member state or marry an EU citizen. So: do you want to start saying that married people shouldn't have the right to live in the same country as their spouses? Or do you want to renounce the rights of all UK citizens to live and work elsewhere in Europe? Because I wouldn't want to lose that right. As for Commonwealth countries, to forward a very broad and basic argument, it is possible to suggest that part of the economic problems caused to those countries result from the stripping of assets and resources which occurred during the occupation of these countries by the British Empire, and conversely that some of our own prosperity was built on these acquisitions. So if people ARE economic migrants, it's always worth remembering that the economic conditions which obliged them to try to migrate have a historical basis and can't simply be considered in isolation.

Apart from which, put yourself in their shoes. If you, by an accident of birth, came from a place with no possibility of a job, which may be in a war zone, where you can't raise a family with any prospect of better lives for your children, wouldn't you do anything you possibly could to get them to a place where you could work, live in peace and where your kids have a chance of something better?
(rampants, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 15:36,
closed)

^this, so hard things bleed.
Also, to expand on your deserving/undeserving thing - it's similar to one of the death penalty arguments, in a strange way. What percentage is it acceptable to get wrong? 1% innocent people wrongly killed? 10%? I think most people would say much, much less than 1%. So how about asylum seekers? If the original poster really is a decent person who is worried about this, how many do you think would be an acceptable "loss rate" ... 1% of genuine asylum seekers refused entry? 10%? 50%? How expensive do you think it would be to instigate a system which NEVER got it wrong? That's "your" taxpayers money, too. I tell you this - it would cost a damn site more than is actually "lost" to the tiny proportion of immigrants who do end up claiming benefits. It would cost a damn site more than is paid in benefits, full stop. So we err on the side of caution, and maybe occasionally a few chancers get in. A few. Who have all been through hell just to get here, yet they are still lazy scroungers?

Oh - and just to clarify... "Illegal" immigrants can't claim benefits. Legal immigrants can, but since as ramparts says, that means EU nationals/commonwealth citizens. Unless you want out of europe and the commonwealth it's a bit pointless to rail against that.
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 17:31,
closed)

Just look at the language
"entitlement" "so-called liberal left" "my tax money"... it's Moseley in a brand new black shirt. Nationalism is nationalism.

Living as a free citizen of a country with several air and sea ports, one shouldn't resent immigrants for having the balls to head somewhere they'd rather live just because one hasn't oneself.

And looking at the budget for asylum seekers and how many of one's Hard-Earned Tax Pounds that equates too might put things in perspective. But of course, one can't trust statistics. That's the liberal media machine brainwashing the sheeple.
(FlapjackI spay a little mare for you, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 20:09,
closed)

I did check, as it goes.
It's not even a fraction of a pence in every thousand pounds tax you pay. But, hey, nothing like a proportionate response.
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 10:41,
closed)

Just a point
`Right wing' does not equate with racist.

There are more than a few historical examples of left wing political ideologies that espouse discrimination on various sectors of society. Go to Russia and they don't talk about `Nazis' - they talk about `Hitlerites' because `National Socialism' was a little too close for comfort.

Interestingly enough all the BNP voters I know (and believe me, I know a few - coming from an area that has at least one BNP councillor) are former Labour voters.

Racism is not a political viewpoint - it is something entirely different.
(Audax Victor, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 17:37,
closed)

No, you're right.
but "nationalist" and "racist" are just two sides of a very dirty and unpleasant coin.
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 10:16,
closed)

I think that comes from the fact that 'Labour'
seems to have lost sight of everything it stood for and has been swinging further and further right as time passes...
(ab1kenobe, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 16:00,
closed)

So many intelligent people have taken your points, debated them, argued successfully that you wrong, and provided you with facts to support it.
So I am not going to try.

I am just going to belm furiously at the screen of my laptop at your sheer fuckwittery.

Now, for you and others who are saying 'Here are my PC credentials, I know a brown person and someone who is a bit forrin so I'm not a racist'...Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Knowing someone who is a different race to you does not give you entitlement to say things you know deep-down are wrong. It doesn't give you a special insight into how it feels to experience racism, prejudice or indeed the desperation that brings people to leave the country where they were born, raised and settled in, to travel thousands of miles to a cold little island to start your life all over again. It just doesn't.

Look at how you speak. What you say. Replace the words 'immigrant', or 'asylum seeker' with the word 'Jewish', or 'Black'. Labelling people makes it easier to be frightened of them - and it stops you seeing them as individuals. The people you are talking about have their own stories, their own personal triumphs, disasters, pain and comforts. They are entitled to help because that is what we have a welfare state for. If the attitude they face every day is one like yours, then frankly I am not surprised they get to the stage where they don't give a shit.

We are not overrun with immigrants (legal or illegal), asylum seekers or EU economic migrants. The NHS is not struggling because of an influx of foreigners - in fact, immigration BENEFITS the NHS. We are not overcrowded. We are not a nation struggling under the torture of multiculturalism, we are a nation who let terrified journalists and fuckwits like Littlejohn and Griffin dictate our way of thinking. Most of the people here who are of the same view as me get their information from proper bipartisan, unboased studies, and can support our views with Actual Facts. All you can come up with is 'well I saw some forrins once and they didn't have a job'.

(I couldn't give a flying fuck about your girlfriend, her ethnic origin, her nationality or how much you feel that validates your own view point - all it means to me is that you are BOTH wrong.)
(Wicca'd Witchneeds ideas for a new sig on..., Tue 6 Apr 2010, 18:05,
closed)

Also
before anyone starts on housing, housing is and ALWAYS HAS BEEN allocated on NEED. If you are a young, single male living in relative comfort at his parents, then do not need a house as much as a young family or person on the streets without that luxury. Your nationality and/or race entitles you to fuck all, as anyone with half a brain could figure out.
(Wicca'd Witchneeds ideas for a new sig on..., Tue 6 Apr 2010, 18:26,
closed)

I was not living in comfort with my parents
I was RENTING a tiny room in a three-bedroom house.The two reception rooms were being used as bedrooms - meaning that there was no common area apart from the kitchen and bathroom.

There was one toilet being used between six people (there was a couple in one room).

The house was filthy, and there were cockroaches.

I was NOT in comfort. I could not afford a place of my own, and I needed out.

But because I was a single male and not an asylum seeker, I was given "lowest priority".

If you want to criticise me, then first you should walk a mile in my shoes.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 19:31,
closed)

I have. You're obviously bitter about what happened, and decided to blame the first group possible. It's wrong, but understandable.
The facts are simple. There is a limited amount of social housing due to the 'right to buy' schemes introduced in the 1980s by Thatcher. The social housing that *is* available, has to be allocated based on need. You didn't *need* to be housed urgently, and therefore you wait. That is how the system works - regardless of whether you are a national or an immigrant. If it didn't, then Britain would be much, much worse off.

Before asylum seekers, it was single mothers. We all got free houses and money for nothing, whilst the poor working-class, single man was left without a council house. Now it's the fault of someone else. Excuse me whilst I try to give a fuck.

Fucking hell, Wicca.
Imagine not having a reception room. Just IMAGINE. That's worse than Hitler*. We should definitely put families on the street so your man can watch telly in a different room to the one he sleeps in.

*yes, that is an post-modern ironic playing of the Hitler card. Oh, I went there.
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 10:15,
closed)

So what was stopping you, you know, getting a job and renting somewhere else?
Why do you deserve free housing?
(emveewill model for Lego, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 17:58,
closed)

Also
Yes - perhaps a family is more in need of housing than a single person.

But what if the family is not British?

Your nationality and/or race entitles you to fuck all

Firstly - what the f*** has "race" got to do with it? I am not talking about race, so why are you?

Secondly - YES my nationality bloody well DOES entitle me to more in my OWN country.

By YOUR logic, then to say that someone's nationality makes no difference, you think that we should open all our borders and let the whole world and his wife come and live here. And if they need housing, then give it to them.

Well if YOU want to pay for them with your taxes then be my guest. But I do not agree to do so.

Anyone with half a brain could figure that out.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 19:45,
closed)

No. It doesn't.
Housing. Is. Based. On. Need.

There are certain criteria a non-uk national must meet before they are allowed on the housing list, but once on there it is down to need. You were not trying to raise a family of three children in one room. You weren't at risk of abuse or illness. If the house was filthy, there was nothing stopping you cleaning the house. You weren't on the streets. You weren't 'disadvantaged'. Not compared to others on the list. It really is *that* simple.
(Wicca'd Witchneeds ideas for a new sig on..., Tue 6 Apr 2010, 20:26,
closed)

More to the point
he says he was renting, which implies he could afford to pay rent, which raises the question of why he didn't move somewhere else and pay rent in a less squalid sounding flat. Surely he wasn't trying to scrounge off the state when he had his own means?
(Bazongaloid Superfly SUMMER HOLIDAYS with a badger gonna GIT yo sucka!!!!wants a hip hop horse, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 20:33,
closed)

Heaven forfend that a bigot could be a fuckwitted hypocrite as well, Al. HEAVEN FORFEND.

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
(Audax Victor, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 11:46,
closed)

Erm, I think I'll go on a different tack here.
what in the name of sweet shuddering fuck makes it "your" country? Is your name on the deeds of the Land Registry?

Or is it because you were born here? does that convey ownership? So if you happened to have been born in Germany (say) while your parents were over there for 6 months, but grew up here, does that mean all bets are off?

Or do you think it's yours because your parents were born here? or their parents? What's the dividing point? Do I get to only complain about 3/4 of the immigrants because one of my grandparents wasn't British?

I realise I'm completely wasting my fucking time, because you are a lost cause, as illustrated with the "let the world and his wife come here" comment. If you truly cannot see how utterly fucking bigoted you are because you are referring to other human beings as a defined group by nationality first, as if you can define like that. "all forrins are spongers" basically. Do you reckon that's somehow less repellant than "all muslims are bombers?" or "all blacks are criminals" .. ? I'd love to know how you draw your distinctions.
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 10:12,
closed)

If all foreign people working in the UK sent their taxes to their home country you might...just might have a point
But they don't, so you don't.
(emveewill model for Lego, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 18:04,
closed)

So less than 0.7% of that fraction of tax that goes on benefits is spent on asylum seekers, including the ones who are rightfully here.
(FlapjackI spay a little mare for you, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 11:11,
closed)

Thank you for all your replies
I shall add a summation here - and will not reply to any nore individuals, because I think I have said everything necessary.

If you all refer back to my original post, you will see that - in the context of this QOTW's topic, ("Prejudice") - my post was not primarily an anti-immigration rant: it was to point out the prejudice that exists among so many people, including B3ta readers, against people like myself.

It started out as an interesting debate. As Legless and a couple of others pointed out, no-one had called anyone a cunt. But then it degenerated.

If you philosophically disagree with me about such points as border controls, nationhood, "ownership" of a country - etc etc - then you have the right to do so. You may engage me in intelligent debate, and if you make a coherent case, then even though I may disagree with you, I will respect you as a person.

Unfortunately we have not just seen intelligent debate. We have had personal attacks and name-calling.

We've had:

* Sarcasm (PsychoChomp)* Exaggeration, sarcasm and assumptions (Flapjack)* Personal insult (Wicca'd Witch)* A stupid, pointless reply (Gawain the oven safe flan tin)* Someone direclty calling me a "racist", even though my points have nothing to do with race (nraphael)* Unnecessarily inflammatory language (the mighty badger)* Ignorant assumption and sarcasm (Green Spanner)* A couple of idiotic, sarcastic attempts to quote me by writing "forrins" in place of "foreigners" - in the childish belief that by somehow associating a mis-spelling with my opinions, it will be an effective counter.

Let me make some basic points clear here, for anyone who doesn't have the capacity to work it out for themselves:* The government does not have an unlimited supply of money to give to benefits scroungers** The money must, therefore, come from somewhere.* It comes from tax-payers.* The money that the British government gets comes from BRITISH tax-payers only. It does not take a cut of all the tax which is paid the world over.

* Since our currency is not pegged to anything solid, theoretically there is an unlimited money supply, in that we can just print more of it: but that causes inflation, which is an indirect form of taxation on EVERYONE else, because it means your earnings and savings have reduced purchasing power.

Now, bear in mind that the anti-immigration viewpoint which I have expressed is NOT rallying against hard-working, tax-paying immigrants who contribute. (This is aside from the issue of absolute capacity on this island, and whether or not we should concrete over green space, which is a different debate - just suppose the British citizen birth rate was much higher, and we faced a population of 100 million in a few years.. that would have nothing to do with immigration. I am not talking about that.)

Bearing in mind the points made above about tax - it stands to reason that a country which has more people contributing and fewer people taking, will have a more successful, healthy economy than a country which has fewer people contributing and more people taking.

Take an example: Country A has a population whose workforce comprises 90% of the people. However, Country B has a population whose workforce comprises 10% of the people. Any idiot should be able to see that, as a proportion of populace, the tax revenue generated within Country A is a lot higher than that generated within Country B. Citizens of Country A enjoy first-class education and healthcare. They have wonderful subsidised public transport. On the other hand, the citizens of Country B have a tough time: because there is so little tax collected, and there are so many people to support, their school class sizes are over 50 children per teacher, and the healthcare is dreadful. The roads are full of potholes, because there's simply no money left to fix them.

This should all be very obvious. I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence, but I feel that it's necessary to spell it out, because there are so many people who unfortunately do fail to grasp the basics.

The basic point about immigrants who come here in order to take more than they give is that when this happens, the rest of us suffer - either through increased taxes, or through reduced public services.

I would like the United Kingdom to be like Country A. Unfortunately, these days it's looking more and more like Country B, with more "takers" and fewer "givers".

And if one of the causes of a country heading towards the state of B is that so many of the "takers" have immigrated for the primary purpose of being a taker, then it is perfectly reasonable to wish to take a stand against it.

We may expand this whole discussion to include one's personal philosophy on the question of nationhood. B3ta member "the mighty badger" said: "[If] you truly cannot see how utterly fucking bigoted you are because you are referring to other human beings as a defined group by nationality first, as if you can define like that."

No, "the mighty badger", you are incorrect. I am not de-humanising anyone - and I certainly don't refer to people "by their nationality first". However, in the modern world there does exist the concept of nationhood. There does exist the concept of people being a citizen of a particular country. I realise that in an absolute, universal sense that this is meaningless - but for the purpose of human society, it is useful to consider that a localised land mass has a certain population, who have the right to call that land mass "home". And if you have a massive influx of people who do NOT call this place "home", but who STILL want to be a "taker" from the "givers" who DO call it home - then it's a recipe for tension.

And yes, there are indeed many British "takers" for whom this IS their home - and there are many non-British "givers" who are good for this country. Again, let me repeat that I do not have a problem with immigrants who contribute. But we should not have to accept non-British "takers".

Now back to the point about the insults, sarcasm, prejudice etc which is directed towards people like me who dare to make their views known...

One of the most reviled figures in history was Hitler - and rightly so. He was a bigot and a racist, and he persecuted people because of their ethnic background. It is a very good thing to see that now, over half a century after his horrible acts, he is still remembered with loathing - because by keeping it in the public consciousness, it ensures that racism can be quickly recognised, and stamped out.

However, it is also possible to go too far the other way. One of the legacies of this memory is that - because Hitler's acts were so awful, and because racism is so reviled, some people these days will bend over backwards just to try to show the world that they're not a racist. They even try to expand the definition of "racism", so that it doesn't just mean persecuting people because of their ethnic background - but so that it also means you're not allowed to support your own country.

The left-wing brigade in the UK are those self-loathing individuals, who feel no pride in their own country, and who - by the mere fact that they have white skin - are so paranoid about being associated with the aforementioned vile dictator, that they go out of their way to stamp out any kind of patriotism or national pride in other people.

Look at those morons who "protested" outside the BBC when Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time. They were not immigrants, or ethnic minorities (two different things!) They were self-loathing British people.

Nick Griffin is a racist. But the correct way to shoot down his views is to engage him in intelligent debate, and to show him up for what he is. Not to throw eggs at him.

And here, within this debate - even though my views have nothing to so with race or ethnic background (and I even said so explicitly in my original post) - the self-loathing lefties have brought it up, called me a racist and insulted me. Just because I happen to support my own country (tribalism is a natural human behaviour), and I don't want to see it go down the pan.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is prejudice.
(EuroSongI love horse meat: best of all the animals, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 12:50,
closed)

If society is prejudiced against you because of (say) your skin colour, you can't do anything about it. That's unfair, and that makes you a victim of prejudice. No-one was prejudiced against you (except nraphael, who I suspect of trolling or idiocy), there was no pre-judgement; you were judged on the opinions you hold and how you present them.
(FlapjackI spay a little mare for you, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 13:26,
closed)

Just so you know
I'm not a self-loathing leftie. I'm perfectly happy with my life and I'm fairly right wing, especially economically, as many here will testify.

None of the people who tried to sensibly debate with you called you racist. We said that you were nationalist and that is simply racism with a different hat and a shiny badge. Which it is. Unless you'd care to explain why treating people differently on the basis of nationality is somehow a world removed from treating people differently on the basis of race?

But let's clarify here, since you bring up something I've said in a separate post, it obviously matters to you. You deny that you are de-humanising by lumping people by nationality. And they YOU FUCKING DO IT AGAIN, IMMEDIATELY.

I ask again. What on earth makes you think that it is OK to accept "British" scroungers but not "non-British" scroungers? neither has made any contribution to the country. And I ask again, do you then want a justice system that punishes people by nationality and not by the crime they commit? because it's the same thing.

I tried to engage you in intelligent debate, but you didn't bloody reply to any of my posts, so I can only assume you've got no answers to what I have to say?

Incidentally, if you follow your "contribution" argument, if I was born here and pay tax and you weren't and don't then I have the right to be treated by the NHS and you don't. Because I've contributed more and it's "my" country. Right? I'm all for letting people die in the street because of their nationality and their tax contribution. Excellent plan.

and inflammatory language? Please. This is isn't kindergarten, and you hold what I consider to be a fairly unpleasant opinion on a highly emotive issue. If the best criticism you can find of me is that I use naughty words, maybe you should go and play somewhere a bit quieter, eh?
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 14:10,
closed)

Well...
...I still have a huge problem with what you're saying despite your very coherent and "reasonable-SOUNDING" efforts to justify it.

Basically you're confusing two separate issues. One: the cost to the taxpayer of the benefits system. Two: the issue of immigration.

The fundamental problem with your arguments is this: if you look at the statistics, it is quite obviously clear that immigrants are not responsible for the vast majority of the cost of the benefits system. We're talking about demonstrable, provable evidence. Whereas what you have done is taken a reactionary stance based, one suspects, on what you have been repeatedly fed by a self-interested media who know that moral panics and fearmongering sell papers.

Find some proof from a reliable source to support your viewpoint or even show that illegal immigrants claiming benefits is a seriously significant problem, and you may get some support. Unfortunately, you won't be able to do that because it's not true. Frustrated about having to pay too much tax? Try blaming the corporations who refuse to pay UK taxes because they are too rich and powerful for the government to be able to make them, and if the govt tried, they could simply desert the UK and set up somewhere else, taking jobs with them. Here's a statistically-provable fact: if all the corporations and businesses paid all the tax they are supposed to by law, all income tax for private individuals in the UK could be abolished without any reduction in the total amount of tax revenue collected. FACT.

And you still think immigrants are the problem? In terms of problems actually affecting the UK, immigrants claiming benefits is way, way down the scale.
(rampants, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 14:17,
closed)

Well 160 posts later and here I am...
I have to say it has been a bit of a rollercoaster. Also very interesting to see this debate remain intelligent most of the way through (and yes, if people get a bit hot-headed when dealing with this sort of issue, well, it's understandable. As long as emotion isn't stopping argument I say fair play).

For what it is worth, here are my thoughts:

1) Where we are born is irrelevant. We are human. I don't feel any great loyality to Britain over the rest of the world simply because i was born here. "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"- Samuel Johnson (although perhaps I'm missing a subtle difference between Nationalism and Patriotism).

"However, in the modern world there does exist the concept of nationhood. There does exist the concept of people being a citizen of a particular country. I realise that in an absolute, universal sense that this is meaningless - but for the purpose of human society, it is useful to consider that a localised land mass has a certain population, who have the right to call that land mass "home""- yes, it is completely meaningless so let's change it. No point carrying around a defunct belief system just because it's the status quo. The World isn't flat. Neither are there lines that surround verious countries.

2) Britain became a "Country A" by destroying the economies of other nations as Mighty Badger said. It still does- The Free Market prevents many 'developing' countries from getting to their feet.

3)There is easily enough money/resources in this country (and world) to support us all. If it's not distrubuted evenly it's not an Immigrant's fault, even if they are a 'scrounger', it's the rich elite. As for scroungers, why is it ok for someone who was born in a rich family to do nothing with their life yet live off their parents money, while it's not if you don't have family money? It's a pure random occurance which family you were born into.

I think the 'problem' of immigration and most of the other 'problems' that the Daily Mail comes out with are just symptoms of an unfair global society. There's no point trying to treat sysmptoms. It's the root we need get.

I'm sure there's more but I can't think of it now. Sorry for the boring post.
(ab1kenobe, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 16:36,
closed)

patriotism is pride in your country of birth or residence
Nationalism is the belief that your country would be better served with complete independence and disassocaition from other countries. It is very, very difficult to argue a Nationalist cause without the subtext that different nationalites (therefore the people) are fundamentally different. While it's absolutely not racist, It's not really different from arguing that racial segregation is acceptable as long as it's not discriminatory. Like I said, two equally unpleasant sides of a very mucky coin.
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Wed 7 Apr 2010, 17:38,
closed)

Out of interest...
Where you stand on Welsh, Scottish and Irish Nationalism? Would you argue that Plaid Cymru, the SNP and Sinn Fein are right wing leaning seperatist organisations?

Also - why are all of the above acceptable...but mention English Nationalism and you may as well shave your head and put on a Union Jack T-shirt?
(Audax Victor, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 6:49,
closed)

Sinn Fein's not a prima facie example of a desirable political organisation, is it?
I don't find any of them acceptable insofar as they enact nationalistic, protectionist policies. Do you?

It is something that seems to have eluded a lot of people, though, you're right. I also think the political under-representation of the English is not an acceptable "fair trade" for their economic dominance.
(FlapjackI spay a little mare for you, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 8:04,
closed)

Plaid?
Well, I'm an Englishman in Wales so probably not the best person to ask. I have ever decreasing respect for the political class as a whole and am torn regarding England having some kind of parliament: Seems logical if the rest of the UK has them, but on the other hand...MORE fucking politicians???

You'd probably disagree with me on my views on nationalism though. I see nothing wrong with it to a point. I used to (not any more) be proverbially proud to be British and proud to be English. I thought Britain and England was the best place in the world. In the same way my mum is the best mum in the world.

It's possible to love your country without hating everyone else. The who nationalist thing has been skewed by events of the 20th Century. It's understandable (and noble) to regard national borders as artifical constructs because that's what they are. On the other hand it's understandable (and noble) to look after your family (and your family writ large?)

Personally though my viewpoint on the whole thing has shifted (and continues to shift) because my utter dissatisfaction with this country in recent years. I feel no loyalty. I feel no patriotism.

On the other hand you'd probably consider me self absorbed and selfish because my one loyalty is to me and mine (which I guess you could retort by saying something like `the human race' - but as I say...)
(Audax Victor, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 8:57,
closed)

what you describe is patriotism, not nationalism.
Being proud of your country is one thing. Believing that your country would be better off without all the others (nationalism) is a whole other.

I'm a (mostly) Englishman in Scotland, so I'm in the same position I guess.

A loyalty to you and yours is a perfectly understandable position, the problem becomes when it starts to actively include "to the deliberate detriment of others" ... but that's a whole other kettle of worms. More specifically, in this case, the "Loyalty to you and yours to the active detriment of others" holds "yours" to be "the British" and "the others" to be every other nationality and I think that's a pretty nasty position to hold.
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 9:28,
closed)

I agree (though I wish I didn't)
It's incredibly hard to not be 'selfish' and want to look after your own. I know I do it. But as a species, in order to progress we really need to start seeing that our own is everyone.

I hate to sound like a Bolshie Leftie but it is Capitalism (and especally this hard-line ultra-captialism we have now) that makes us act in competetion, when we really don't need to.
(ab1kenobe, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 11:32,
closed)

I never said nationalism was right wing
but, yeah, definitely separatist. I find them fairly distasteful to be honest. And I don't think they are acceptable. I think they are "accepted". There is a bit of a difference, IMO. The only real difference between those you mention and the BNP is that they never campaigned on a race card.

But the point you make about SNP (say) vs English Nationalism is a good and important one. Although from my point of view, I'd ask the opposite - why is it that the others are tolerated?
(the mighty badgerAphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 8:33,
closed)

"The money that the British government gets comes from BRITISH tax-payers only. It does not take a cut of all the tax which is paid the world over."
Er, no, the money comes from tax paid by workers in Britain. No matter what nationality they are.

If what Flapjack said is true:
"Total UK welfare 140bncost of asylum seekers under 1bn.

So less than 0.7% of that fraction of tax that goes on benefits is spent on asylum seekers, including the ones who are rightfully here."

then you're really barking up the wrong tree. In fact if that's all that's being spent on them I would strongly advise you to turn your wrath onto the legions of British scroungers as evidently they're the ones causing the problem.

Oh and as to immigrants families costing the taxpayer money in services, again I think you'll find that the families of British scroungers are costing us much much more.

As a result if you give a shit about reducing the vast majority of the tax spent on benefits I'd suggest that you'd be better served arguing for benefit reform (as I do) rather than stopping immigration.

We can't kick out British scroungers, but we can stop giving the cunts money to piss up the wall and smoke away. That, my friend, is where the problem with the benefits system lies and talk of immigration really is the stuff of Daily Mail headlines.

The right wing press give much more of a shit about the 'traditional British way of life' (TM) being changed rather than the monetary cost, but they bleat on about it all the same in order to give force to their argument.
(The man with the flanswashed his buckle on, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 11:13,
closed)

I would also like to say...
That apart from the fact that I completely disagree with your view point, I admire the way that you have stuck to your guns, remained calm (ish) and suplied argument without name-calling. Kudos.
(ab1kenobe, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 11:34,
closed)